←back to thread

GitHub CEO: manual coding remains key despite AI boom

(www.techinasia.com)
358 points andrewstetsenko | 3 comments | 23 Jun 25 20:50 UTC | HN request time: 0.645s | source
Show context
CoffeeOnWrite ◴[23 Jun 25 21:11 UTC] No.44360164[source]▶
“Manual” has a negative connotation. If I understand the article correctly, they mean “human coding remains key”. It’s not clear to me the GitHub CEO actually used the word “manual”, that would surprise me. Is there another source on this that’s either more neutral or better at choosing accurate words? The last thing we need is to put down human coding as “manual”; human coders have a large toolbox of non-AI tools to automate their coding.

(Wow I sound triggered! sigh)

replies(11): >>44360265 #>>44360468 #>>44360470 #>>44360489 #>>44360577 #>>44360647 #>>44360671 #>>44360929 #>>44361655 #>>44362289 #>>44362732 #
anamexis ◴[23 Jun 25 21:45 UTC] No.44360489[source]▶
What is the distinction between manual coding and human coding?
replies(1): >>44362974 #
1. jdiff ◴[24 Jun 25 05:03 UTC] No.44362974[source]▶
Often when you're calling something "manual" you're taking something off the automated happy path to tediously and slowly wind the thing through its complex process by hand. The difference between manual coding and human coding is tedium and laboriousness. It's not laborious to program, but the phrase "manual coding" evokes that image.
replies(1): >>44363040 #
2. skydhash ◴[24 Jun 25 05:19 UTC] No.44363040[source]▶
Maybe that’s what they’ve been doing? No one using Vim, Emacs, or Unix as an IDE would say they do manual coding with the amount of automation that usually goes there.
replies(1): >>44365229 #
3. aeonik ◴[24 Jun 25 12:03 UTC] No.44365229[source]▶
Indeed, if your not using butterflies to program, it's not manual, and your not a real programmer

https://xkcd.com/378/